March 29, 2004
Dr. Rice's Dilemma
Dr. Condoleeza Rice, National Security Advisor to President G. W. Bush, has a dilemma. Pressure is mounting upon the Whitehouse and Dr. Rice to testify in public and under oath before the 9/11 Inquiry Commission. As Lorie Van Auken, widow of a World Trade Center victim put it, “Rice should come out and explain what the national security adviser knew, didn’t know, what kind of information was passed to the president and didn’t get passed”. Ms Van Auken was quoted in an Associated Press article by PETE YOST. In the same article, Yost states
Rice declared Sunday night that “nothing would be better, from my point of view, than to be able to testify” to the commission. But, she added, “there is an important principle involved here: It is a long-standing principle that sitting national security advisers do not testify before the Congress.” She has appeared before panel members in closed session.
Dr. Rice might have better spoken by using the word "precedent" rather than "long-standing principle", above. For if it is a principle that stays her testimony, that principle of protecting the President from public scrutiny when questions of misleading the nation or criminal actions may have occurred, is a principle the American public and the Constitution of the U.S. never intended to be implemented. It is understandable when issues of national security prevent public scrutiny of Presidential decisions, but, national security is NOT the issue here. The only security involved here is that of President Bush's re-elect ability. And that brings us to Dr. Rice's dilemma. There is nothing in Dr. Rice's history to indicate that she is dishonest or not credible. Dr. Rice however, holds a very political position as advisor to the President, and playing politics is not above her job description.
Dr. Rice on the one hand, would, if under oath, in all likelihood, feel obligated to tell the truth as to what she advised the President as to whom was responsible for the 9/11 attacks, whether Iraq was involved, whether Richard Clark's assertions in his book are accurate. On the other hand, Dr. Rice's propensity to discuss these issues in almost every venue available to her which does not require being under oath, is telling of her obligation to spin the facts, avoid direct answers to direct questions, and to fulfill her obligation to protect the President politically, since her job depends upon it.
The bottom line is, there is nothing in the Constitution of the U.S. that prevents Dr. Rice from testifying under oath publicly before the 9/11 Investigation Commission. What does prevent her from testifying, is the potential damage to the President's re-election if she speaks the truth, or perjury charges and prison time if she lies before the Commission.
For millions of Americans, it is beginning to appear that Dr. Rice is placing her loyalty to President Bush for hiring her above her duty to the American people. Her duty to the American people is to provide the facts needed for the people to make an informed decision about whether or not this President acted responsibly in defending the American people from an attack which the intelligence community, and others in government, have stated was known by the President as likely and potentially imminent. How would you resolve this dilemma Dr. Rice finds herself in?
Posted by David R. Remer at March 29, 2004 01:29 PMTo be fair to Rice’s motivations, she probably believes (at least for now) that if she keeps quiet she increases the likelihood of Bush winning again. And she probably believes that Bush winning again (and her serving as his National Security Advisor again) would be good for America. In short, in her own mind she might not be putting personal loyalty above her duty to the American people.
When you put yourself in the shoes of someone like Rice, you have to believe right down to your core that you and your friends are good for America and that the opposition is bad for America. Thus, obfuscation and deceit in the name of maintaining your grip on power (and keeping power away from your opponents) can be interpreted as a good thing.
Of course, this is disgusting to people like us, but I can’t imagine anyone in the highest circles of power, in either party, who could think differently.
Ultimately, whether or not Rice testifies will not rest on her personal ethical decisions. It won’t have anything to do with governmental principles like maintaining executive privilige for future presidencies. It will ultimately come down to whether or not the political heat on her gets so hot that she decides that it’s better to testify than to not testify.
-Cf
Posted by: Christopher Fahey at March 29, 2004 01:53 PMDavid:
You are far to wise to stoop down so low in an attempt to slander someone. At this point, whether under oath or not, you do not know that Condi Rice is NOT telling the truth. Yet you make your assumptions.
You defeat a large portion of your own argument by stating that Rice is discussing the issues in every venue she can find. This indicates that she is not afraid to talk about the issues, nor afraid to discuss them. Rather, it shows that there DOES need to be a separation between the executive and legislative branches.
Now, David, before you get your fingers going, I personally dont see the problem with her going to the commission and testifying under oath, but I do understand the precedents that might be involved. Besides, the court of public opinion has far more sway than the 911 commission ever could have.
If the public believes Rice to be lying, regardless of which venue she were to lie to, then that is the worst of all outcomes.
I believe there is blame to be passed around, but I also know that the partisan “blame” game is going to force every one involved to take strong sides, rather than look for the common solutions that could be found. That is the true shame in all of this.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at March 29, 2004 02:01 PMSomeone in another forum stated that both Clinton’s and Carter’s national security advisors testified before Congress…
It was also noted that separation of powers doesn’t really count here because it’s not before Congress, it’s before a panel appointed by the President himself.
Posted by: ceejayoz at March 29, 2004 02:08 PM“On the other hand, Dr. Rice’s propensity to discuss these issues in almost every venue available to her which does not require being under oath, is telling of her obligation to spin the facts, avoid direct answers to direct questions”
joe I assume this is what you meant when you said david was calling dr.rice a liar, or however you put it exactly, but david only points out that the one and only place that dr. rice won’t talk is where she has to talk under oath. and that IS kinda suspect.
Posted by: martin at March 29, 2004 03:04 PMJoe,
You make some really pragmatic remarks, but I have to disagree regarding Rice’s extensive testimony on the talk show circuit. These are hardly venues where honest public scrutiny occur. These “PR” appearances are one-way communication channels notable for their lack of debate. Instead, and as is the case here, we are fed a highly controlled media stream where Bush and his people are without guilt and all contrarians are discredited. The problem for Rove et al. is that too many of the “unfaithful” have long, distinguished reputations in Republican administrations and it is no easy task making them out to be “evil doers.”
First of all it continues to amaze me that learned and (supposedly) wise individuals like Dr. Rice and Mr. Powell would continue to work for a moron like Bush. Now that I have that off my chest…
What Dr. Rise is doing on the news talk shows is spinning the situation, sewing seeds of confusion into the garden of the American publics’ collective mind. Clark has done an eloquent job of rebutting everything the Bush Administration has thrown out to try and smear him. I listened to him on 60 Minutes two weeks ago, and again on Meet The Press yesterday morning and his story has not changed. In fact he has called for the declassification of every email he sent to Dr. Rice and her responses to him. Sound like a man with something to hide. Meanwhile the Bush Administration’s version of events has time and time again, and they say that Clark has political motivations in writing his book. What political motivations? Is Clark running for public office? It is settled in my mind who is more creditable.
It is looking more and more like Dr. Rice and the Bush Team dropped the ball. They pushed Clark to the margins while they pursued their near-sided neo-conservative agenda without regard to the consequences. She is afraid to testify under oath in front of the American public because the truth might brand her and her boss negligent. I agree with David, she has little to no constitutional grounds on which to stand, at least in my estimation. Perhaps the 9/11 commission should subpoena her and let the courts get involved and settle the question before the November elections. We, the American people, have a right to know the truth and not the spun version half-truths Ms. Rice is currently courting.
It is also interesting to note, that Republicans themselves are calling for Rice to testify, fearing a credibility gap if Bush insists she does not, as reported on CNN Headline News today.
It is very possible the pressure will induce her testimony under oath. If that happens, we should look for something akin to a 5th Ammendment declaration. In the absence of that, and in the presence of direct answers to direct questions, Bush may be absolved.
But why do I have the feeling I am missing a loophole to this scenario of honest and forthright testimony under oath? Fact is, given that there is no separation of powers issue at play, it does appear there is something to hide. Perhaps time is being bought before a willingness to testify to permit the development of a national security cloak to prevent damning testimony from being brought forth. It would be interesting to see the billing for the President’s attorneys for last week and this.
Posted by: David R. Remer at March 29, 2004 03:43 PMEveryone needs to do a stint as a professional in the federal government. If for no other reason you get to view first hand how a mess like the Rice verse Clark fight occurs. You will need a really strong stomach since the nauseating sense of moral revulsion is overwhelming.
The system work like this:
A political appointee got his or her job because of an undesirable personal trait (usually bootlicking).
The political appointee is totally clueless as to what his/her department does or how it does it. His/her job is politics.
At some point in his/her stewardship he/she will do something that is technically unsound and against the advise of his/her subordinates. This usually occurs during an attempt to advance his/her career or political agenda.
A meeting is then called and everyone is told to shut up. The political appointee will then go on television and explain how their personnel actions keep this from becoming a bigger disaster. Several months later they will receive an award from some partisan group that used his/her bungling to their advantage.
If after several decades of nausea you can’t stand it any longer you can quit and write a book.
Of course my biggest beef is that nothing I’ve witnessed is worth writing a book over. The most I can do is flame and rant on a Blog somewhere.
The point of this meandering rant is that both Bush’s flunkies and Clinton’s flunkies screwed up. But Bush and his people wanted the job of defending the country and 9/11 happened on their watch. So roast then over the fire of public indignation like the little power piggys they are.
So what’s with Rice’s 60 Minutes statements? Part of her time on the show dealt with why she wasn’t going to testify publicly before the commission, and the following sums up her point. Get this:
“[The 9/11 commission] is not concentrating on what happened on the day of September 11th.”
Is that so? Because this is what the commission’s website says about itself:
The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, an independent, bipartisan commission created by congressional legislation and the signature of President George W. Bush in late 2002, is chartered to prepare a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.
And then the President’s own statement:
This Act also establishes the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States to examine and report on the facts and causes relating to the September 11th terrorist attacks.
In whose book does that not cover 9/11 itself? So is this a lie, or what?
Posted by: Gaelen Burns at March 29, 2004 04:23 PMFunny that Bush Administration officials would have problems interacting with and supporting the 9/11 Commission that Pres. Bush himself hand-selected to begin with, isn’t it? These delays aren’t making the Administration look any more credible, so what’s the delay?
Posted by: Anthony at March 29, 2004 05:11 PMDavid:
Is there a difference in your mind as to Dr. Rice talking to the 911 commission openly, as opposed to her talking under oath? Seems to me that it doesnt much matter, since we would expect her to tell the truth in either circumstance. Of course, some people will chafe at the thought of a Republican actually telling the truth, but my earlier comment about the court of public opinion explains all that.
David, I also want to comment (and I hope you respond) about Richard Clarke. It’s amazing to me that Clarke can come out with a book, and also testimony, that paints the Bush administration as buffoons, and when the Bush admin then responds, it is the Bush admin doing the attacking. Additionally, they are not focusing on Clarke personally to the exclusion of facts. Of course they are pointing out Clarke’s personal flaws, but also are showing that some of his comments simply are at complete odds with his earlier statements.
It also amazes me that Bush is pilloried for 3 seconds of 911 footage, while Clarke is making millions by taking advantage of 911, the commission on 911, and the election cycle. Can anyone truly miss that he is doing this? Its certainly his right to do so, but it sure seems to me that if he were a Republican, the media would have castrated him by now.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at March 29, 2004 05:13 PMJoebagodonuts said, “Is there a difference in your mind as to Dr. Rice talking to the 911 commission openly, as opposed to her talking under oath?”
Yes, there is a difference. Speaking in public and lying incurs no criminal penalties. Speaking under oath to the Commission does.
With regard to Clarke, my position is his testimony is his word and to be valued as such, and without corroboration, like the classified memo he wants declassified, his word is no better or worse than the President’s or Dr. Rice’s. With cooroboration, however, his testimony is damning to say the least regarding Bush’s judgement and competence as Defender of the American people.
Posted by: David R. Remer at March 29, 2004 06:03 PMOkay, so I’ve heard several reasons why Rice isn’t testifying:
1) She doesn’t want to set a precedent of having active National Security Advisors testifying under oath. I don’t believe this reason for a second. If you are able to unquestioningly swallow this rationale, then read no further.
2) She has something totally incriminating to hide, and she’s afraid to have to choose to either purjure herself or reveal a sinister administration secret. For example, maybe the Administration made a conscientious decision to let America be attacked by terrorists in order to drum up support for invading Iraq. Theories along these lines are outrageous and absurd, but as Howard Dean pointed out, they will forever haunt our national consciousness as long as the administration continues to act so secretive about its policymaking.
3) She has something to hide, something very politically embarassing but not in the least bit incriminating. Personally, I think this might be the real reason. Rove has certainly thought about this whole thing, and he may have concluded that it’s better to be embarassed by her not testifying rather than have her reveal something criminally benign but nonetheless deeply embarassing. For example, maybe she spent the whole day of 9/11 explaining to Bush who Osama bin Laden was. Better keep that under wraps!
What other reasons might there be? I am certain that there are other potential reasons. Is anyone here smart enough to think of another reason? Let’s brainstorm a little bit.
* Maybe there were sensitive and frank discussions between Bush and Rice about the international political situation, discussions that, if revealed, would damage our relationships with key allies, making our ability to build internation coalitions more difficult. Heh.
* Rice’s testimony might reveal rifts and exacerbate tensions between Bush’s other key advisors (for example between Rumsfeld and Powell) and break up the “unit cohesion” of the Cabinet, leading, of course, to resignations and tell-all books.
* Perhaps they have information about a high-level Al Qaeda secret agent who has infiltrated the Joint Cheifs of Staff! Maybe they are planning on blowing his cover any day now, and testimony before the 9/11 commission would blow their whole plan.
* Maybe the President has polio and is confined to a wheelchair, and only Condoleeza Rice knows it. Revealing this secret during a time of war would crush the morale of the American people.
* Condoleeza has a Presidentially-signed copy of “Leaves of Grass”, if you know what I mean!
-Cf
Cf, one error in your speculation. National security concerns could be justifiably testified only in closed session, or not at all. Therefore, she has nothing to fear regarding testifying to questions that invade national security issues, she declares the question invasive of national security and refuses to answer on those grounds. So asterisked paragraphs 1 and 3 are not applicable or valid reasons for not testifying.
Posted by: David R. Remer at March 29, 2004 07:12 PMThanks David, you’re right. I forgot about that. I guess she’s got even less wiggle room than I thought.
At least she’s not being so cynical as to cite national security reasons for not testifying. Yet.
-Cf
Posted by: Christopher Fahey at March 29, 2004 07:33 PMHere’s an excerpt from Bush’s statement approving the creation of the commission. In it, he claims the right for his team to refuse to testify for a whole bunch of reasons.
Many provisions of the Act, including section 342 and title VIII, establish new requirements for the executive branch to disclose sensitive information. As I have noted in signing last year’s Intelligence Authorization Act and other similar legislation, the executive branch shall construe such provisions in a manner consistent with the President’s constitutional authority to withhold information the disclosure of which could impair foreign relations, the national security, the deliberative processes of the Executive, or the performance of the Executive’s constitutional duties.
So if they held a meeting in which Bush asked “Osama bin who??”, the administration thinks it could keep it secret insofar as it involves the “deliberative processes of the Executive”. It also seems like Bush was well aware at the time of this writing that such an interpretation of the law establishing the commission might not jibe with the letter of that law.
-Cf
Sure Cf, the Democrats in congress wanted a non-partisan commission. The Congressional Republicans and the President wanted the current format because they thought it would go easier on the President and it would be easier to obstruct.
It also amazes me that Bush is pilloried for 3 seconds of 911 footage, while Clarke is making millions by taking advantage of 911,
I think you could argue that President Bush picked up “millions” in campaign donations by using those “3 seconds of 911 footage”. BTW, Clarke is donating a significant portion of his “millions” to families who lost loved ones on 9/11 and in Iraq. How many “millions” is Bush donating?
Christopher Fahey: It seems to me that the us vs them, good vs bad mindset you describe as necessary for someone in her shoes is in fact the worst possible thing for someone who is national security advisor. The world is not that black and white, and treating it as if it were can only lesson our security by working against the indivisibility of america that is a requirement for truly fighting terrorism at home and abroad.
Gaelen Burns: I think Dr. Rice (and by extension the administration which she serves) are indignant that the commission considers the administration’s stance on terrorism for the whole year prior to 9/11 to be part of the circumstances surrounding the attack, while the administration would prefer scrutiny to be more narrowly directed on and around the date of September 11th itself.
joebagodonuts: Apparently, Dr. Rice and her administration feel strongly that there is a difference, where the people feel as you have said that there should not be on such an important issue and that we should be able to expect the truth even if not given under oath. It is the fact of the administration’s insistence against her being under oath when testifying which puts so many on edge and makes us call for her to testify under oath instead.
Posted by: Jarin at March 29, 2004 10:55 PM> It seems to me that the us vs them, good vs bad
> mindset you describe as necessary for someone
> in her shoes is in fact the worst possible
> thing for someone who is national security
> advisor.
You have a point, but I have mixed feelings about that. I mean, the country is pretty polarized. It’s obvious that some Democrats, and some Americans, think that Bush, Rice, and the whole lot of them are recklessly leading America to hell in a handbasket. And, conversely, the Republicans think that (evidence notwithstanding) Clinton led us to hell in the 1990’s and that Kerry, if elected, would lead us back to hell as well.
In any event, Rice and her boss are the ones who have chosen to take make the 9/11 commission an “us vs. them” issue.
From the very beginning, when they opposed the creation of the commission, they acted as if the investigation would inevitably become a witch hunt. When they decided to make it a bi-partisan commission instead of a non-partisan commission, they acted as if they expected a witch hunt. When they chose to avoid Rice testifying, when they chose to have Bush testify for only 1 hour, when they chose to spare no expense in defending themselves against allegations by Clarke, they treated the investigation like a witch hunt.
-Cf
Posted by: Christopher Fahey at March 30, 2004 12:01 AMLee:
“I think you could argue that President Bush picked up “millions” in campaign donations by using those “3 seconds of 911 footage”. BTW, Clarke is donating a significant portion of his “millions” to families who lost loved ones on 9/11 and in Iraq. How many “millions” is Bush donating?”
You seem to be saying here that profiting from 911 is okay, as long as you give some of the money back. Sounds like a Michael Milken type of deal—remember when he made about $500 million in bad junk bond deals and had to pay a $100 million fine?
First off, 911 HAPPENED! As the most cataclysmic terrorist attack on the United States, it deserves some attention, dont ya think? For Bush to ignore it would be similar to US historians to whitewash any pictures of Roosevelt in a WWII context, or perhaps….just perhaps….for John Kerry to not utilize the images of himself in Viet Nam (where 55,000 Americans died). But Lee, these things happened, they are part of the historical record, and therefore should be a part of our decision making process.
Secondly, Clarke is beginning to recant a bit about how much money he will be giving. This oughta be good. If he truly were so concerned about national safety etc, its amazing to me that he waited a year and a half in order to work with editors, get the cover photos just right, schedule the speaking tour——yknow, all those things essential to national security.
Lee, there are parts of what Clarke says that need to be recognized. WE should not either ignore it completely, nor buy into it completely. But to miss the concept that this is a political stunt, planned out in entirety for maximum effect, would simply be naive.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at March 30, 2004 08:09 AMDavid the long standing principle that Dr. Rice is talking about is the Separation Of Powers Doctrine, that is the baisis for our entire government. I would not call merely a precident. Because Dr. Rice is appointed by the president and does not have to go through congressional approval, having her answer under oath to congress would overstep congresses powers. The only person that she answers to is the president. I think that it is very gratious that she is even willing to speak to them behind closed doors, because she does not even need to do that. If we started making all appointments answer to congress the Presidency would be severly weakened, and congress would be strengthened mightely, at its expence and the expence of liberty.
Posted by: Miguel at March 30, 2004 09:17 AMYou seem to be saying here that profiting from 911 is okay, as long as you give some of the money back.
joe, I just think there’s a lot of stone throwing going on in the conservative’s glass house.
WE should not either ignore it completely, nor buy into it completely. But to miss the concept that this is a political stunt, planned out in entirety for maximum effect, would simply be naive.
That is such a contradictory statement it boggles the mind. Take a few minutes to sort out whether you think Clarke’s testimony and book are relevent to the subject or not. It’s either a factual account of what this guy believes happened, or it’s all a fabricated stunt. The timing is irrelevent.
Listen. Clarke has made no secret of the fact that he thinks Bush did, and is doing, a sub-par job fighting terrorism. In that context why would the guy (or anybody) not speak out? Isn’t it his civic duty?
That doesn’t necessarily mean he’s right. If the President can prove Clarke is making stuff up, then I’m sure he will, but judging by the administration’s instant resort to character assassination, I’m not going to hold my breath.
Clarke was in a position to see that Bush wasn’t doing a good enough job by his standards, and he said so. All the rest is spin.
BTW, the Democrats’/anti-bushies’ new pinup for the month of march Dick Clarke refused to testify to congress in 1999, siting the same reasons as Dr Rice. That was in reguards to the Y2K stuff that we were all hysterical about some 4 years ago. here a link:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/3/29/172749.shtml
Posted by: Miguel at March 30, 2004 09:45 AMMiguel-
The issue was never whether she COULD claim executive priviledge (as others, including Clarke) have. Of course she COULD. But she didn’t HAVE to. The White House was arguing that it would not be POSSIBLE for her to testify.
Of course, now it seems that it is quite possible. Signing a document saying that it will not become precident is a fine addition to their agreement. If that’s all they were worried about, it seems they could have come to that resolution sooner.
It sure seems that their concern was not just about the precident but also about the testimony itself.
Posted by: Kathryn Knowlson at March 30, 2004 11:35 AMMiguel, you’ve already posted that NewsMax link on another thread, “To Rice or not to Rice?”. In fact, you’ve cut and pasted your entire comment, verbatim, and posted it on two different threads.
Anyway, WatchBloggers, please go to the other thread where you will see me show how the core allegation in Miguel’s cited NewsMax article is false.
-Cf
Posted by: Christopher Fahey at March 30, 2004 02:18 PMThe President has agreed to permit Dr. Rice to testify under oath and in public. Look for national security to interfere with the some of the kind of important answers we the people want, candid, honest and to the point.
Many, if not all answers are likely to be well rehearsed and prepared. It will be up to the Committee to dig for the truth with probing and insistent questions. If there was nothing to hide, Rice’s and the President’s testimonies will still be tainted by those skeptical of the President simply because he was not forthcoming and upfront from the beginning.
The President no doubt sees this as damage control, but, I suspect the only damage that will be repaired is that to party loyalists and some Independents.
Posted by: David R. Remer at March 30, 2004 05:38 PMLee:
You say that Clarke’s timing is “irrelevant” and that he is just doing his “civic duty”. To take that position is simply laughable.
Clarke’s civic duty would have been to immediately address problems with national security, not to wait 18 months while the galley proofs of his book are being finished before discussing his thoughts. To wait until he could profit from his assertions is venal.
I believe that Clarke thinks Clarke is right, just as I believe that Bush believes Bush is right. That simply means there are two opinionated people there, and a situation rife with nuance.
I truly dont see the Bush team response to Clarke as character assassination. They have documented what Clarke said two years ago, and what Clarke is NOW saying about the same time frame. His inconsistencies are relevant, dont you think? Additionally, it seems to me that calling virtually the entire Bush team incompetent, as Clarke has done, is more in the line of character assassination.
Lee, as I said, we need to review what happened, but also to recognize that hindsight makes mistakes seem larger than they were. And mistakes most certainly were made. But a key point to understand is that even Clarke is on the record as saying that even if all his policies were enacted, 911 would still have occurred.
Yet you blame Bush still. How interesting.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at March 30, 2004 06:00 PMWell, for everyone who said it was a matter of principle that Dr. Rice not testify, it would appear this President has no principles on this issue, as he has now reversed himself, yet again, and will permit Dr. Rice to testify under oath and in public.
Anything for a poll number I guess.
Posted by: David R. Remer at March 30, 2004 06:02 PMjoe-
Just because he wrote a book doesn’t mean he’s lying.
Clarke has explained any perceived inconsistency in what he is saying, and that has been addressed numerous times. He worked for the administration, so he emphasized the positive things. He resigned and was free to address the negative things as well. Plenty of other character attacks have been levied against Clarke, and they’re all quite tired at this point.
Clarke hasn’t called the administration incompetant. He has shown areas where he thought they did not do their jobs well. Everyone has performance reviews in their jobs. Especially elected officials and their staff.
This administration just hates criticism, and they attempt to condemn anyone who says anything negative about them. Criticism comes with the territory, guys. It’s not unpatriotic, it’s what keeps our democracy working.
Clarke is not blaming Bush alone. Plenty of people (including Clarke himself…at his own admission) share responsibility for not doing more prior to 9-11. Bush IS one of those people, AND he’s a current President running for re-election, so it makes good sense for the country to evaluate his particular role in all of this and decide if his leadership is the best thing for our country in the future.
Posted by: Kathryn Knowlson at March 30, 2004 06:33 PMTwo quick points to make…Dr. Rice already spent 4 hours in private with the Commission. Any pertinent info gleaned from that will come out in the final analysis. She is going to repeat to the public what the commission already knows.
Second, during Clarke’s testimony, Clark himself says that if the Bush admin took all of his recommended steps, that 9-11 would still have happened!
This is a partisan witch hunt. Whatever noble goal this was supposed to serve, has turned super political. To assume that Bush was responsible for 9-11 is ridiculous. He had been in office for 7 months and this attack had been in the planning for years. 9-11 may have been prevented if the CIA and FBI communicated, and that has now been addressed. It would have been easier to address that during Clinton’s 8 years than in Bush’s 7 months, but hindsight is 20-20.
Bush deserves credit for making significant changes post 9-11, regardless of your political affiliation. To assume that he was buried in how to take out Iraq and neglected terrorism thus missing the chance to prevent 9-11 is peddled purely by those who are against the war and anti-Bush and are looking for an excuse to villify the President.
Posted by: Rob S at March 30, 2004 07:04 PM> Clark himself says that if the Bush admin
> took all of his recommended steps, that
> 9-11 would still have happened!
…
> This is a partisan witch hunt… To assume
> that Bush was responsible for 9-11 is
> ridiculous.
Rob, I’ve had to say this over and over again: Nobody (at least, nobody except some crackpots) has made the accusation that Bush could have prevented 9/11. Everybody knows that Bush couldn’t have done anything about 9/11. You are arguing against a non-existant threat.
It only looks like a witch hunt because the Bush Administration (and its friends, apparently like yourself) insist on treating any investigation into their terrorism policies like one. They think any questions at all must be motivated by partisan politics, or worse, anti-Americanism. The Administration could just relax and answer the damn questions, and maybe then they wouldn’t look so sleazy and paranoid.
> Dr. Rice already spent 4 hours in private with
> the Commission. Any pertinent info gleaned from
> that will come out in the final analysis. She
> is going to repeat to the public what the
> commission already knows.
This, on the other hand, seems to be a valid point. Why interview her twice? Before you answer, let me follow that up with a couple of other questions (for the WatchBlog group):
1) Was her previous testimony delivered under oath, or was it simply an interview without any legal obligation to tell the truth (as Bush’s testimony apparently will be)?
2) Has the commission learned anything since Rice’s previous testimony that might cause them to have new questions that they couldn’t have asked before?
I have enough respect for the 9/11 Commission to assume that they’re not just parading out witnesses for the sake of spectacle. But who knows, maybe you’re right and Tom Kean just wants to put on a show.
-Cf
Posted by: Christopher Fahey at March 30, 2004 07:51 PM1) Was her previous testimony delivered under oath, or was it simply an interview without any legal obligation to tell the truth (as Bush’s testimony apparently will be)?
She was not placed under oath during her first testimony. Neither will Bush or Cheney be under oath when they testify.
2) Has the commission learned anything since Rice’s previous testimony that might cause them to have new questions that they couldn’t have asked before?
Rice is the one who asked to come back to address the statements made by Richard Clarke. She’s essentially called herself as a rebuttal witness. I’m fine with this. Let’s get all the facts out and evaluate them. If Rice proves that Clarke is a bitter cook with an ax to grind, then great! At least we’ll FINALLY have a REASON to believe that. Somehow, I doubt she’ll be able to prove anything like that, though.
Posted by: Kathryn Knowlson at March 30, 2004 08:09 PMKathryn:
Excellent attempt…really just excellent. That you cannot see that Clarke “hasn’t called the administration incompetant” undermines your entire post. I mean, please, lets call a spade a spade. What exactly do you think Clarke meant when he claimed that Dr. Rice appeared to never have heard of Al Queda before? Do you really think that was intended as a “performance review” as you suggest?
There are not just “perceived” inconsistencies in Clarke’s newest version. There are ACTUAL inconsistencies. And though you buy into his explanations, not everyone does. That does not make you automatically wrong about them, but for you to say that he has explained them all away is simply not correct. It would be similar for me to say that the Bush team has explained away all the accusations…..you see, that would be incorrect as well.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at March 31, 2004 09:24 AMHey joe,
Clarke’s civic duty would have been to immediately address problems with national security, not to wait 18 months
Clarke says he did immediately address the issue and was ignored.
I truly dont see the Bush team response to Clarke as character assassination.
To quote you, “To take that position is simply laughable.” :)
They have documented what Clarke said two years ago, and what Clarke is NOW saying about the same time frame. His inconsistencies are relevant, dont you think?
I don’t know. His full testimony from two years ago hasn’t been made public. If you do know, you probably shouldn’t be saying anything about it here. :)
I’m with the Republicans on this one. Release Clarke’s testimony. The full testimony, no cherry-picking. The one thing this whole froofurrah might give us is a little transparancy in the most opaque administration in my memory (it goes back to Nixon, BTW).
I believe that Clarke thinks Clarke is right, just as I believe that Bush believes Bush is right. That simply means there are two opinionated people there, and a situation rife with nuance.
Haha! That sounds familiar. Where have I heard that before. Oh, that’s right. I said that in the post you’re responding to.
Clarke was in a position to see that Bush wasn’t doing a good enough job by his standards, and he said so. All the rest is spin.
Personally, I prefer my turn of phrase. And please,
But a key point to understand is that even Clarke is on the record as saying that even if all his policies were enacted, 911 would still have occurred.
I don’t know how many times the Dems have said we agree: There’s no way Bush could have known the specifics on 9/11. So you guys can stop getting all defensive about it now.
The way you guys are so skittish over that imagined accusation just makes everybody think maybe there is something there. “Methinks thou dost protest too much,” or something like that. :)
Joe - If there are inconsistencies with anyone’s testimony, there will be a penalty of perjury levied upon them, and their testimony will no doubt be largely thrown out. If Clarke is shown to have lied, then string him up.
However, I think that Rice has more to worry about in that regard. Remember, there’s been a *lot* of closed door testimony which she isn’t privy to. She has no ability to check beforehand and make sure all the stories wash. She could very easily be blindsided by something like that, leaving open the possiblity that the perjury penalty will fall upon her. Given the huge number of very detailed questions that previous testimonies have given rise to, I think that the Administration has put itself at a disadvantage here. She should have testified at the beginning, when they would have just been asking general questions. Now she’s going to get grilled.
Posted by: Gaelen Burns at March 31, 2004 09:59 AMjoebag-
What exactly do you think Clarke meant when he claimed that Dr. Rice appeared to never have heard of Al Queda before? Do you really think that was intended as a “performance review” as you suggest?
Yes, I do.
”Her facial expression gave me the impression that she had never heard the term before,” This is what you must be referring to, and this alone does not mean that Clarke thinks ths Bush administration is incompetant. It also doesn’t mean that Clarke believed that she had, in fact, never heard of them before. It means that he thought that Rice’s reaction surprised and disturbed him. He’s just trying to describe her look. If she gave a confused look, wouldn’t confusion be a possible interpretation of the look? If she was, in fact, confused about Al Qaida, couldn’t that be a valid criticism of the National Security Adviser? I’d definitely call that a critique of her performance in her job and not a character attack. He didn’t say “Rice wouldn’t believe anything I told her, because she never liked me to begin with, and she’s bitter that I was still around and trying to tell her what to do. And her Mama is fat and ugly.” That would be a character attack. He’s stating that perhaps she was not doing her job well. There’s a difference between needless character attacks and valid criticisms. As has been stated repeatedly, just because it isn’t flattering doesn’t mean that it’s wrong or even suspect.
There are not just “perceived” inconsistencies in Clarke’s newest version. There are ACTUAL inconsistencies.Ok, what ACTUAL inconsistency can you site that hasn’t already been addressed? If you think he still needs to explain something, what is it? I’m not saying that there is nothing that he could possibly still have to explain, but as far as I know, he’s explained everything that I could call into question, so what are your beefs with his story at this point?
As Lee says, we aren’t privy to his previous testimony, and as Gaelen says, the administration could prosecute him if he lied.
Regarding Clarke’s timing of the book.
Note that the administration had to review this book for security reasons and took over 3 months to do so, hence they are at least partially responsible for the release date. In their frequent complaints about the timing they fail to mention this.
Posted by: George Kunz at March 31, 2004 12:25 PMKathryn:
C’mon now, you know that prosecuting someone for lying is a tough thing, even when they have done it. Two reasons: 1) Much of what Clarke has said has nuance to it on both sides, so there isnt necessarily a “lie” to it. There is a difference between lying and being mistaken——but there is NO mistake that Clarke’s statements have changed. 2) To prosecute someone on such a thing keeps the topic in discussion, which is never good for the injured party. That’s why most celebrities dont sue the rag magazines for publishing out and out fabrications.
Kathryn: much of what Clarke has said is now at issue—but let me sum it up in one statement. He now says that he was spinning the truth previously because he was with the Bush administration, and that now he is presenting the unvarnished truth. This begs the question: Since we know that he is willing to massage the truth when he deems it necessary, how do we know he is NOT massaging the truth now?
Posted by: joebagodonuts at March 31, 2004 01:15 PMjoebag-
Much of what Clarke has said is now at issue where? On Republican talk radio? on Fox “Fair and Balanced” News? In what non-extremist setting are Clarke’s statements at issue? And which ones? You still haven’t told me which points are at issue.
However, what you have insinuated is that *all* of his statements are at issue, because you don’t know if he’s massaging the truth. Well, when do you ever know if someone is massaging the truth? If you live this way, how do you ever trust anyone to tell you the truth about anything?
If you’re claiming that his ability to be honest now is affected by his JOB to focus on the positive aspects in the past, then I think you need to take another look at what is going on. You see, when he worked for Bush, he was told to talk about things that made Bush look good and avoid talking about things that made Bush look bad. He didn’t lie. Everyone in politics does this. If you inherently distrust them all to such an extreme, then how do you vote?
So you don’t know for SURE that he’s not massaging the truth, but you have certain clues. For instance, you use your own judgement to evaluate if he seems to be trustworthy to you, second of all, you check and see if his story can be supported by anyone else, and third of all, you look for things like sworn testimony before the 9-11 commission and realize that if he was lying, he would be facing criminal charges. Don’t think for a second that the administration would hesitate to levy perjury charges if they could.
Posted by: Kathryn Knowlson at March 31, 2004 01:59 PMGee Joe,
To quote Josh Marshall
“George W. Bush. Again and again, it seems, the president hires some seemingly seasoned career counterterrorism hand, only to find out later that he’s actually a Democratic plant, a partisan stooge or just a plain fool.”
Lets look at the list:
- Joe Wilson, and his wife
- Richard Clarke
- Paul O’Neill
All of these individuals have long Republican service histories. All have now been discredited by this administration.
Just a little odd don’t you think
Posted by: George Kunz at March 31, 2004 02:24 PMKathryn:
Clarke has SAID he massaged the truth. And considering that his current statements dont match his prior statements, we can all see evidence of that. So it isnt ME saying he is massaging the truth, but rather Clarke himself.
As Clarke is saying now, much of his differences with Dr. Rice are “a matter of opinion, rather than fact”, which is what I said a few posts ago when I spoke to the nuances. I already answered about the perjury charges and how difficult (no, impossible) it would be to prove, precisely because what Clarke says.
Also, Kathryn, lets look at what Clarke just said on Hardball——he is NOW saying that 911 could have been prevented when last week under oath he said there was not the remotest chance of preventing it. So….which of Clarke’s statements do YOU choose to believe? Wait, dont answer that——i think a newer and better version might just be around the corner.
George: Yeah, it is a bit odd, but also notice that in Oneill and Clarke’s positions, they were demoted which ticked them off. So they had an axe to grind. And in Wilson’s case, the Bush team did not choose to go with his assessment. Perhaps the Bush team is too harsh in its treatment of people, but politics is a rough game.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at March 31, 2004 04:32 PMJoe,
>>O’neill and Clarke’s positions, they were demoted which ticked them off. So they had an axe to grind.
I just don’t buy this proposition,convenient as it may be. After serving multiple Republican presidents, and being life long republicans you cant simply dismiss these folks as “having axes to grind.” Way too simplistic.
And what of the Republican outing of Wilson’s undercover CIA wife (which by the way is a felony)?
Posted by: George Kunz at March 31, 2004 06:08 PMjoebag-
Ok, I haven’t heard Clarke use the words “massage the truth,” and I’d appreciate if you could provide me with your source. I’m not trying to discredit you here, but I’d just like to become familiar with as much of what he has said as possible. However, I’ll take you at your word that he said it, and my response is that he obviously doesn’t have the same interpretation of what that phrase means as you do. You think it makes him shady. He’s trying to say that he’s not lying, he’s just emhasizing the good parts of the truth. If you or he wants to use the word “massaging” for “emphasizing the good parts of,” I have no problem with that.
However, I don’t think that behavior makes him suspect. I think it is the SAME thing that ALL members of the administration do whenever necessary. It’s politics.
How can you ever vote for anyone ever if you think that this behavior is so abhorrant?
As for what he said on hardball, I’ll have to find a transcript and read EXACTLY what he said, so I will preface my speculative comments by saying that I haven’t yet seen what he did say. My suspicion is that he’s not reversing anything, though, because what he’s said ALL ALONG is that there is a CHANCE that if the President had been having the daily meetings that Clinton had prior to Y2K, that MAYBE it would have been POSSIBLE that the people within the FBI who knew that some of the terrorists were in the country would have been able to get that information up the ladder so that it could have been acted on. If that had happened, WHO KNOWS what could have happened? Here are some options….
1) Nothing would have happened. We would have failed at stopping 9-11
2) We would have found those guys and arrested them, and 9-11 would have happened anyway, but maybe it would have been smaller somehow or something.
3) We would have found those guys, and that would have lead to finding the rest of the guys, and 9-11 wouldn’t have happened.
4) Aliens would have colonized our planet creating a race of mutants with giant elbows and a taste for asparagus.
WE DON’T KNOW. But preventing 9-11 is certainly on that list. What he’s said before is that even if the administration had acted on his plan, 9-11 probably still would have happened. That’s his belief. However, we really don’t know, and it’s certainly POSSIBLE that with better policies, we could have prevented it. That’s his other point. He has more than one point, and they’re not mutually exclusive.
Similarly, if Clinton had done things differently, we could potentially have prevented it.
I’ll go look for his actual statements to make sure I am not way off here, but that’s my impression based on everything I have heard him say so far.
Posted by: Kathryn Knowlson at March 31, 2004 07:18 PMKathryn:
I did not use the words “massage the truth” in quotes, meaning that Clarke did not use those particular words. I’m referring to his comments of how he was putting a positive spin on facts while in the Bush admin—-I dont have his specific quote, but we all know that he basically said that while he did not lie, he certainly put the best face on things. So…he is certainly more than capable of massaging the truth (my words again) since he has admitted doing it successfully.
Now, all along, I have been saying that we need to take what Clarke has said and utilize the information to have better intelligence and security for our nation. And ….just as I have suspected, Democrats are gleefully using his charges as a kind of proof that its Bush’s fault, or that it is Bush’s fault much more than it is Clinton’s. This is where the problem lies—the Dems are trying to make the evidence seem worse, while the Repubs try to minimize it. And in doing so, NEITHER one gets to the heart of the problems.
I have no problems voting for people, BECAUSE i understand the system. I tend not to listen too much to campaign rhetoric. Notice that Bush and Kerry are beginning to offer all sorts of things—-but the real issue is who can provide what. And thats how I base my votes. In Bush’s case, whether you like some of his ideas or not, he HAS been successful in getting them through—tax cuts, Medicare etc. I happen to like the direction he takes, but I also like that he can get it done.
My biggest problem with Clarke is that he is now spinning (my word) the factual information in a different way than he did 18 months ago. So which version to believe. Considering the circumstantial things, such as him having voted for Al Gore, his waiting until the campaign season and the Dem primary is over to announce his stance, and his profiting from a book scheduled to come out just as he is testifying, I have healthy reservations about his position.
Yet Ill agree that some of what he says may be true. Thats where we have to focus, but it has become more of a witchhunt than an investigation. And if you are the one who is branded as the witch, you have to fight back.
George: to your point, I gave a reason for Wilson’s potential disillusionment. But the bottom line is that we should look at these 3 instances and judge why they have come out angrily. I’m sure in part its politics, part of it may be bruised egos, and part of it may be the truth. But….to use these examples simply as evidence that Bush must be evil and must go, as many on the Democratic side are trying to do, is simply incorrect.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at April 1, 2004 08:00 AMHey joe - O’Neill was never “demoted”. He was The Treasury Secretary until he was dismissed.
According to Suskind’s book, his only grievance was that Bush was making (bad) fiscal policy based on politics, rather than economics.
John DiIulio had a similar grievance:
“There is no precedent in any modern White House for what is going on in this one: a complete lack of a policy apparatus,” DiIulio tells Esquire. “What you’ve got is everything—and I mean everything—being run by the political arm. It’s the reign of the Mayberry Machiavellis.”
“When policy analysis is just backfill, to back up a political maneuver, you’ll get a lot of ooops.”
There does seem to be a fairly large number of administration officials, all of whom have experience working for previous Republican administrations, leaving in disgust before the end of GWs first term.
I read somewhere that Powell will not be sticking around if Bush becomes a two-term president (God forbid). I wonder how his “unvarnished” memoirs will differ from the “positive spin” he’s been putting on everything this administration does.
Will he also be painted as a disgruntled, low-level employee?
Joe, Clarke was an employee of the Bush Administration, and they have a deserved reputation as absolute fanatics about people staying on message. They are still claiming, despite more than a year of unsuccessful searching, that there are WMDs to be found. It seems like an inordinate number of Bush ex-employees are coming to the conclusion that his policies and his efforts have been weak or counterproductive at best. He’s gone through counterterrorism head honchos like’s it’s going out of style.
Current employees of Bush are rebutting charges in a manner replete with doubletalk, evasion of questions asked in favor of responses prepared, and a great deal of vague hemming and hawing about the controversies at hand. Witness Hadley and Rice on Sixty Minutes, and Powell on various other shows. Their uncomfortability with what they are saying, their self-conscious delivery, is telling as to just how much effore they are having to put into navigating this political minefield.
All in all, it seems like the Bush camp has somethings that its very worried about becoming public, but which it is helpless to soundly refute. Therefore, the attack politics, the accusations of partisan interest on the part of those who dissent.
Did you hear, though? Clarke has criticized the use of snippets of his interview on a democratic commercial, maintaining that he does not want the debate about counterterrorism to become merely partisan bickering.
If you’ve read his book, you know that he starts out by telling his reader that the purpose of the book is to educate them on how the United States came to this point in the counterterrorism battle, where it’s at right now, and where it might want to be in the future.
Put two and two together. I think Clarke fits the mold of an Advisor turned prophet, and like many prophets, if you will, he is not accepted by his own people.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 1, 2004 09:50 AMjoebag-
Massaging the truth: regardless of who uses what words, Clarke thinks what he was doing was par for the course politics, and you think it makes him untrustworthy. So there is a difference between Clarke’s interpretation of what happened and yours. I’ve already explained mine.
However, I don’t see the inconsistencies that you see, and you still haven’t shown them to me. Let’s talk about specific points instead of buying into the hype. I’d be happy to discuss specific inconsistencies.
As for voting for Gore, HE ALSO VOTED FOR MCCAIN. I’m getting really tired of making the same points over and over again.
CLARKE IS NOT A PARTISAN POLITICIAN. Look at his career, his voting record, the accounts of those who know him. Look at plenty of evidence that has been presented. He’s not partisan.
THE TIMING OF THE BOOK IS NOT CLARKE’S FAULT. The White House held onto this book for months and chose to release it now when they could accuse him of being an opportunist in this way. You can’t blame Clarke for the book coming out right before his testimony or at this point in the election.
I hope this is the last time I’ll have to explain these points. I’m really tired of it.
Posted by: Kathryn Knowlson at April 1, 2004 10:21 AMRichard Clarke and Condoleeza Rice are not really at odds over 9/11 or the Iraq preoccupation - their custody dispute over their child, which they can’t take into the courts for PR reasons is what this is really all about.
This story will probably break on Drudge’s site tomorrow!
April Fool!
Kathryn:
Seems to me we simply are going to have to agree to disagree. While you say Clarke’s statements have been explained, I dont see it that way. When you blame the White House for the timing of his book, I dont see it that way. You cant blame EVERYthing on the Bush administration—oh wait, perhaps just maybe you can.
When I point out a specific issue, like how Clarke saying that Rice seemed to never have heard of Al Queda is essentially questioning her entire capability and intelligence, you simply rush it of as being more of a review of her job.
So it doesnt really matter what issues we discuss, it would seem. We simply both reinforce our own opinions, and this forum is not the right place for individual discussion (due to the time between posts, and the ultimate boredom of others reading our posts)
Thanks for the debate—I find you intelligent and informed, and while I disagree with your basic premise, I enjoyed it.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at April 2, 2004 07:34 AMMy observations:
#1. The Commission itself was formed by the President, yes. And the white house tapes were setup by Richard Nixon to record white house activity for posterity and history. Ironic history can ironically repeat itself there.
#2. Why would it be a bad precedent for a National Security Advisor to let the American people know what she knew and/or didn’t know at the time of an attack that took upwards of 3,000 American lives? At what point does the NSA believe herself to not work for the American people?
#3. This two-edged sword cuts the other way, too: Richard Clarke. Give me a FREAKING BREAK about him. He’s a career politician extraordinaire, and you can even see it in the way he tries to carry himself like Ted Kennedy. If he’d gotten a promotion instead of a de facto demotion, by the Bush administration, he’d give glowing adulation to what he sees as effective anti-terrorist policy today. And to say Clinton was some sort of an anti-terrorist crusader in his administration, that is what makes the hinky meter go off the scale and makes me immediately put everything the man says into what I can only politely call “perspective”. Yes, Bush was asleep at the wheel regarding terrorism on 9/10, boo hoo and tough for the Republicans there, but do NOT give me any B.S. about Clinton being all Tom Clancy on Al Qaeda. He wouldn’t even authorize armor units for Somalia, for cryin’ out loud. And if he calls bombing an aspirin factory a “military strike” one more time, I’m going to have to vomit and release my bowels at the same time.
#4. Speculation on what Kerry would do going forward. That’s a good question. Would he veto himself, or yank the funds away from what he himself authorized? That’s what he did as a Senator anyway. Seems to me like he would be changing his mind too often to form a truly effective policy, but I’m willing, nay, EAGER, to be proven wrong on this. It wouldn’t make me vote Democrat, but I’d sleep better at night after seeing him roundly defeat Bush in November.
What probably needs to be done is to not overly kibbitz the intelligence and special operations communities, and just let them do their jobs. Fund what’s needed, certainly, but even more important than that, do NOT tie their hands with namby pamby restrictions or “you can’t go there because it would upset such-and-such government” or “that target is off-limits”. Just unleash them like pit bulls at a crack house, and let them bite off what sets of family jewels they see fit. These Islamic Jihad guys who get up in a mosque and preach terrorism as a part of their religious services, BOOYAH, that should be pieces of them all over, like yesterday. And Navy SEALs are just the guys to do it. I’ll personally pitch in to fund the ordnance.
They can’t kill us if we kill them first. And as long as the people tasked to kill them first, get what they need in terms of support, and don’t have politicians standing in their way, I think Jennifer Lopez could be president and the right things could still happen for us.
